Monday, September 10, 2012

From the file of news that was overshadowed by the dueling
Republican and Democratic political conventions is this nugget from Reuters
about a US smackdown of Israel over their escalating rhetoric about a war with
Iran (Reuters used the more diplomatic term 'chastised', but you get the idea).

Last week, while speaking to
reporters in Great Britain, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General
Martin Dempsey, said that the United States did not want to be “complicit” in a
preemptiveattack on Iran and starkly warned Israel that if they went it alone on the attack that they risked
unraveling the international coalition that has levied heavy sanctions on Iran's
crude oil industry and banking sector; sanctions that Pres. Ahmadinejad
admitted earlier in the week were starting to causing real pain in Iran.

It was a bold statement, and one
that has sent Israel scurrying back to square one in their efforts to start a
war with Iran. The simple fact is that the Israeli Air Force does not have the
ability to launch the type of sustained and targeted campaign of air strikes
that would be necessary to knock out Iran's nuclear research program.Or as one unnamed European diplomat was
quoted as saying in the same Reuters article: “all this talk of war is
bullshit. If they could do it, then they would have already done it long ago.”

For their part, the Israelis are
now pushing for the establishment of a clear “red line”, an action by Iran that
would guarantee a military response by the anti-Iran coalition (namely the
United States). The Israelis are also ramping up their sabre-rattling against
Iran's proxy group Hezbollah, threatening retaliation against Lebanon should
Hezbollah launch attacks against Israel on Iran's behalf. For their part, the
Obama administration is offering up a vague statement that diplomacy cannot go
on “indefinitely” and that “military action” remains a possibility if Iran
doesn't live up to their obligations.

Of course, it is very hard to
imagine the US launching any kind of military action before the November
elections, and if reelected, Obama is likely to feel much less pressure to
placate the pro-Likud lobby within the United States, which puts into question
the likelihood of military action against Iran in Obama's second term.This does make you wonder if Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might not attempt to interject himself into the US
presidential race somehow. Netanyahu is a longtime personal friend of
Republican Mitt Romney, so it is plausible to think he might try to play the
double whammy of encouraging a US strike against Iran and boosting his friend's
presidential chances by trying to make Obama look like he is both weak on Iran
and putting Israel at risk by not launching military strikes now to stop the
imminent threat of the Iranian nuclear program.

This strategy has some real risks
attached though: for one, Netanyahu has been saying that Iran was on the verge
of getting a bomb since the mid-90s, so his cries of danger have worn a little
thin by now; the bigger issue though is that the American populace, mired in a
slow economic recovery and weary from a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan,
might genuinely oppose calls for launching another military campaign in the
Middle East, which would weaken, rather than strengthen, Netanyahu's efforts to
get the USAF to knock out Iran's nuclear program for him.

If Netanyahu tries to go this
route, it will likely be at the United Nations General Assembly set for later
this month.

Mission Statement

Why A World View? Because I was frustrated by the lack of international news coverage in the American press. Sadly, foreign events usually only make the news when there’s a war or natural disaster someplace. But the world is more interconnected than ever, what happens on the other side of the globe can have a direct affect on your life. So I started this site to cover some of these stories missed by the mainstream media, and to provide analysis and context to others. And my goal is to do it in a way that you don’t feel like you need a PhD degree to understand what’s going on.